The Daily Beast Podcast - This Isn’t a Confirmation Hearing for Cruz—It’s a Clout Check

Episode Date: March 25, 2022

It’s the 200th episode of The New Abnormal, starting with a wild “flashback” to the very “first” episode in the summer of 1998, when co-host Molly Jong-Fast foresaw a future of “racist babies,” with Molly wishing “if only there was a senator with a ridiculous mustache” to being the issue to light. Jump ahead to 2022, and co-host Andy Levy says Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson “really missed a chance there” when that senator with the ‘stache, Ted Cruz, asked her to define what a woman is. Jackson could have said, joked Levy: “Yes, senator, I define a woman as someone you marry and then defend them when someone else calls them ugly,” like Trump did to Cruz’s wife—who didn’t think that, or Trump saying his dad had killed JFK, was reason enough to stop sucking up to The Donald. Later in the episode, the Beast’s Matthew Fuller joins the party to break down the fuckery of the Jackson hearing and its “straight racism, just the full-flavored version." Plus, Buzzfeed’s Christopher Miller, who’s been reporting from the Ukraine for years, considers the first month of the Russian invasion—“When Putin announced his invasion, I was in the Eastern city of Kramatorsk, near the front lines of the longer simmering war in Eastern Ukraine and (was) awoken by an airstrike on an airfield that was about 2000 feet away from me, which is definitely 2000 feet too close—and the history that led to this moment.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Molly Zhang Fast, no relationship to Kim Jong-un. I'm a left-wing pundant and a writer at the Atlantic Info. And I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN HLN guy and current cable news conscientious objective. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with the wisest and funniest and funniest people in science and media and politics that help make what's happening today clearer. Our world has been turned upside down, and on the new abnormal, we'll talk about the people who got us into this mess and how we'll hopefully get ourselves out of it. What a fun show we have today. BuzzFeed's Ukraine correspondent Christopher Miller, who's just back from the region, will update us on what he saw there. Then we'll talk to the Daily Beast senior politics editor Matt Fuller about what he's been seeing in the Senate this week. But first, let's have some fun.

Andy. Molly. You know what today is? It's some kind of anniversary, isn't it? It's Arbor Day? No. This is our 200. episode. Man, that's amazing.

So I wanted to go back in time to one of our very first episodes and listen to how right you guys have been over the years, because this week it just happened. You were really right about something. So let's go all the way back to the summer of 1998 when this podcast began. Molly, did you see there's this new show on, I think it's Home Box Office, HBO, called Sex and the City, that just started? No. Tell me more, Andy. Well, I didn't watch it. You don't watch television. You only watch PBS, right?

I generally only watch PBS and listen to NPR and all the podcasts. Yeah. But yeah, it's this new show with Sarah Jessica Parker and some other people. And look, it's not for me, but I suspect it's going to be around for a very long time. Do you know what I think is going to be a big issue in the future, Andy? What's that? Racist babies. Man, I hope so.

I am so tired of racist babies. Those babies have to be stopped. They do. And nobody cares about them right now. but hopefully in like 20 years or 25 years, maybe we can get people talking about racist babies. Like I would like Congress, I would like the Senate to talk about racist babies. If only there was a senator from Texas with a ridiculous mustache. Wow. That's crazy. We're really, really, really smart.

Yeah, I had forgotten all that. To me, it just feels like I've only been here for a couple of months. So it's just, it's amazing how quickly the time flies. That's right since 1998. But we were right about the racist baby. weren't we? We were right about a lot of things. But thanks to Ted Cruz, we were particularly right about the racist babies. Right, about the racist babies. Let's talk about this hearing that has been going on for Judge Jackson. It is her fourth Senate confirmation process, and I want to say she's one of the most qualified candidates that's probably ever sat

before this group of pretty... Unqualified. I want to say stupid at racist, male, white senators, but there was also a female. So there's Marsha Blackburn looking at you. But yeah, we have for the last three days seen white Republican men and Marshall Blackburn basically bring up sentencings that she has handed out when she was a judge in different judiciaries as a way of trying to,

trying to sully her name. And what I think the context that is missing is that judges make recommendations for sentencing. That's their job. And nothing that she has done has been outside the mainstream, but because she's an actually very qualified candidate with no rape charges against her, you know, nobody's looking at Beach Week. There's no Cavanaugh, right? Like, I just like beer. There's no, she doesn't have, she isn't in a weird religious sect that we're not allowed to to ask about. She's just a really hardworking woman who's come really far and worked really hard and who has really nice daughters and really nice husband. And it's actually related by marriage to fucking Paul Ryan. Okay. Like these people are so goddamn squeaky clean. There is nothing wrong with

them. So as a way to try and intimidate her and sully her, Republicans are talking about a few of these sentences that she has handed down that are about pedophilia in the hopes that they can get enough pedophilia sound bites to hurt her. It's been quite a couple of days of just like sitting there going like you'd see one Republican senator like Lindsey Graham would speak and he would just be a complete ass and he would get up and storm out which he did twice by the way and you would think well it can't get any worse than this. And then you'd have Josh Hawley come up. And you'd say, okay, but it really can't get any worse than this.

And then Ted Cruz would come up and talk about racist babies and ask her if she could define what a woman is, which I really think she missed a chance there to say, like, yes, Senator, to me, I define a woman as someone you marry and then defend when someone else calls them ugly. So I really, I think she missed a bit of a chance there. But it really was. It was like, it was one after another, just getting up there and being a total ass clown, with I guess the exception of Ben Sasse, who at least seemed somewhat normal compared to the other inmates of the asylum. It was gross. And it was clear that, look, this is true of all Supreme Court hearings. Nobody cares.

All they want to do is get, by nobody cares, I mean the senators. All they want is time on TV. And we saw that with Ted Cruz checking his Twitter mentions after his little segment, which is, like, I don't know who was the worst of them, but he was the saddest. Like, that's the saddest thing imaginable is to be a sitting senator and to do your thing and then immediately run to Twitter to check your mentions to see how you did. There's just nothing sadder than that. I mean, I feel like Ted Cruz is an interesting case of someone who doesn't even really want to be a senator anymore and just want. to like podcast and be on television. I mean, he's like Jason Chavits.

He's not famous enough in being a senator. And it's like, why, like, you go be a famous person. Like, we don't need you. Like, Texas can do better, I promise. The problem he has, though, is that nobody likes him. And it's like, you know, you can say what you want about, like, other, you know, right-wing weirdos who have large platforms and, and or, you know, even someone like, even someone like Joe Rogan who, you know, I don't know that I'd call him right wing, but obviously he inspires deep feelings in people.

But there are a lot of people who like Joe Rogan. There are a lot of people who like Dave Rubin. I don't understand it personally. But nobody likes Ted Cruz. And it's really hard to have the kind of fame that he wants when everybody loads you. So I think he's stuck with his politics gig. Yeah, it's a heartbreaking story until someone retires him. Yeah.

It's interesting. I don't agree. Like, I think that if you're a member of the judiciary, you're pretty focused. I mean, that's a pretty good committee to be on. And it tends to have the most serious people, though it does have Marsha Blackburn. So you would think that some of them would at least be a little bit serious. But it clearly, the Republicans just were trying to get dunks. And I mean, I was struck by that it really feels like Trump is, while Trump is gone, Trumpism is not. Oh, absolutely. And look, I agree with you. I agree with you in theory. It should be one of the most serious committees where the members actually take it seriously. But instead, you've got, you know, you've got Josh Hawley who just wants somehow still thinks he's going to be president in 2024. You've got Ted Cruz, who, as you said, has a podcast. And also, I think for some reason thinks he might be president in 2024. And you've got Lindsey Graham who just, at this point, point, I've lost the words to describe Lindsay Graham because it's just his performance was, and look, it's all performance. That's exactly what it was, was a performance. Everything that these guys do is performative. I'm sorry. I refuse to take, like I said last time, you know, I'm not going to sit here and pretend I have to think Josh Hawley is a good faith actor. He's not. And nothing he said was in good faith. I don't even think he believes anything he said, because there are certainly, as other people have pointed out, there are plenty of judges who are appointed by Trump who have

similar records to Judge Jackson with regard to sentencing for child pornography possession, which was his, you know, that was his big thing. But he doesn't care about that because he ultimately doesn't care about child pornography and he doesn't care about pedophilia. And it's all an act. And there are people that fall for it. We saw a lot of them in our Twitter mentions this week. But the fact that there are people who fall for it doesn't change the fact that it's an act. I think what we realize is like this performative Trumpism does work. She'll probably still get appointed, but there have been a lot of pretty vicious Fox News cycles that have mentioned her name and child pornography, which wouldn't have had those Republicans not brought it up. And there were headlines that said things like a difficult exchange or, you know, heated exchange or, you know, things that sullied her for no reason other than Republicans are good at this.

No, absolutely. And look, to some extent, you've got to give a little credit to Ted Cruz, I guess, for being the most honest in checking Twitter right after his turn was over. Because that is really, as you said, it's all about the Fox News soundbite. It's all about, you know, getting those sweet, sweet retweets from QAnonters and alt-right people. Don Jr. That's what it's all about, ultimately. It's not about grilling Judge Jackson. I mean, Ted Cruz spent a whole thing with her on, on Chris. race theory, and this is when he brought up the racist baby stuff. And he did this whole thing. And it was so clear that he only did it, like it had nothing to do with her and nothing to do with any of her decisions. It was just because she was black. So he was like, I'm going to talk about black stuff, what I think is black stuff. And, you know, and I said at the time, like, it reminded me of, like, someone saying, you're my black friend. Let me ask you this, thinking they have all the answers on every issue that is of importance to black people.

It was so pathetic, but as you said, it also, you know, to the extent that it plays to their dumb base, it works. Right. And I think it plays to the base and it gets those words, child pornography, and the nominee's name in the same sentence to them that's winning. And I mean, I think some of it is a culture where people are not super tuned in. So they're just seeing, you know, they're just scanning the paper. they're seeing the headlines. And I think some of it is really that, you know, the base is very

involved in this Q-Anon stuff. And it's not great. Can I ask you guys, so Senator Ben Zass offered the solution that these should not be televised anymore and that that would maybe stop the performative moronics. Do you guys have any feelings on that? I think he's right to a certain extent. In the same way, I think they should stop televising the White House press conferences that the daily press conference, because all you end up with is reporters grandstanding. As someone who was in front of the camera for a bunch of years, I do believe that for the vast majority of people,

when you turn a camera on, it changes them. By the way, I also think that's a good argument for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court itself and stuff like that. Although you'd like to think once you get to that level, you're not grandstanding or playing to the cameras, but it's just human nature for a lot of people that that's what they do.

So I think he has a point. I don't know you have to balance that with. I think the American people have a right to see this and to see who's going to be on such a powerful institution as the Supreme Court. So I honestly don't know what the answer is, even though I do think he's right. Part of me wonders if they should just do the audio, like they do with the Supreme Court sometimes,

and not the video, so that people can hear what's happening. I don't know. I always think more transparency is better. but certainly the Republicans are out of control. I mean, I also feel like these people have way too much time to grandstand, and there's not a lot of, like, actual question asking. So, I mean, I feel like they're part of what's happening is that.

But yes, certainly a problem without an easy solution. The best thing is when they take, like, eight minutes to get to their actual question, and then two sentences into the answer they interrupt. We were seeing that with Ted Cruz. Oh, yeah. Ted Cruz was doing that constantly. And it's just, it's like, oh, my fucking God. How are you not more self-aware that everybody hate you?

And this is why. So this week, Trump tried a new thing, which he's actually done this before. But this is probably the most kind of brash one he's ever done. Trump is debuting a very new thing called the unendorsement. And what an unendorsement is is you endorse someone and then you decide, this person's not doing so great. I only want to endorse the winners, and so I will unendorse this person.

The person happens to be, he's a Trump endorsement, so he's a terrible person, but one Mo Brooks got unendorsed by Donald Trump, not the first time, but I'm going to tell you not the last time, discuss. Yeah, I mean, this is sort of an interesting little case because Trump unendorsed him

because he said that he, because he's mad that Brooks wouldn't. Sucks. Well, and also wasn't lying about the election enough. Exactly. That he wasn't helping Trump overturned the election enough. Enough. But he was the first person who was shopping the big lie.

Absolutely. And he spoke at the, you know, he was one of the speakers on January 6th. But it's interesting because now Brooks has sort of fired back and come out with all these things that he's like, well, he asked me to do this. And I said no because like. To overturn the election. Right, because the Constitution is more important than the president. But meanwhile, you accepted his endorsement. You were perfectly happy that he endorsed you.

And right up until the point when he unendorsed you, you said nothing about any of this. And now it's Mo Brooks resistance hero. Like, he's just trying to portray himself as this noble defender of the Constitution. Mo Brooks said that Trump asked him to, quote, rescind the 2020. elections immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election

for the presidency. I mean, those are small asks. The problem with Mo Brooks is he doesn't understand like he's a terrible member of the mafia because he went along with the godfather to a certain extent, but then he, I guess, refused at one point, but

you know, he kept his mouth shut because Omerta and all that. But as soon as the godfather, said you are no longer part of this family, he went and spilled the beans. And, you know, so I think he needs to go to witness protection now is I think that's the next step, having seen Goodfellas. I think that's what happens. Yeah, I mean, I think that's the only answer. Yeah.

I mean, I love these quotes. I break my sworn oath for no man. Wow, you're a real, you're a real hero there, buddy. I mean, my question with Mo Brooks, it's our fucking. Like, the most famous thing about Alabama is that Trump actually picked a Senate candidate who couldn't win it in 2018 or 2016. Oh, 2000. No, for the special, which was Ray Moore. Speaking of pedophilia.

Bandon malls, Roy Moore. Yeah, it just strikes me that Brooks is trying to do the same thing that we see from every other, you know, from all the people in the Trump administration who are now coming out and saying, well, he asked me to do this. and I said, no, I'm a hero. And sort of forgetting, like, all the things they said yes to. Sometimes those people come back to Trump World. Like, they'll write a bean book about Trump and then they'll come back. Like, you never leave Trump World. No, it's like Pet Cemetery.

Sometimes they come back. Christopher Miller is a correspondent at BuzzFeed. Welcome to the new abnormal Christopher Miller. Thank you for having me. I want you to explain to our listeners just how you got into covering wars and where you just were. Yeah, sure. I'll try to boil it down. You know, I never set out to be a reporter covering conflict,

let alone a war correspondent or anything of that sort. I certainly do not refer to myself as a war reporter or war correspondent. I'm originally from Portland, Oregon, and I've been working in some small newspapers and magazines out there back in 2008, 2009, when the financial crisis hit And I was looking to make some moves, but nobody was really hiring at that point. So I actually joined the US Peace Corps and ended up going to Ukraine, which I'd never, never planned to do or certainly wasn't a place that was really on my radar.

I don't have any familial links to Ukraine. And I ended up there. And not only in Ukraine, but actually was sent way out to eastern Ukraine and worked in Donetsk Oblast. So pretty close to the Russian border in a predominantly Russian-speaking area. And ended up doing that for a couple of years, during which time I, I did some cultural writing and travel writing and then got back into journalism in 2012 when I finished the Peace Corps and decided that's the route I wanted to go. I found some strings at various international news outlets and started working also as a reporter and editor at the English language Keith Post newspaper. And so I stuck around Ukraine and based myself out of Kiev, the capital.

and for the next, you know, year and a half or so, was working at the Kia Post, was stringing for, there was an outlet called the Global Post at the time and some others. And, you know, everything sort of kicked off at the end of 2013 for me. You know, at that time when you're, if you're a reporter focused on Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular, you were mostly writing about corruption, attempts at reform, you know, some pretty crazy political stuff and bandits and oligarchs and all of that. pretty wild post-Soviet Eastern European stuff. And then, you know, end of 2013 is when the Euro-Maydon revolution kicked off. It moved into high gear in 2014. And of course, we know how that ended, you know, with Yerunnikovych, gunning down revolutionaries, Russia moving into annex Crimea, and then the war in eastern Ukraine kicking off. And, you know, I'm there the entire time covering all of those events on the ground, all day, all night, With very little sleep, you know, it all just sort of came to me. I happened to be in these places when these things happened. You know, I didn't actually go seeking them out. You know, I was never a reporter who said, you know, I want to go cover conflict crises. Right. You weren't a war, Torres. Exactly. You had a relationship with Ukraine. Right, right. You know, I just, it was, it was a country that I learned to love and get to know people and I developed friendships. And I just, I really loved the place deeply and, you know, decided to stay and, you know, eventually moved into

various roles at different news outlets. And, you know, suddenly it's, uh, what, 20, 22. And, and I've spent about 12 years, you know, mostly living and working in the country, covering the country intimately, um, and it's periphery, I suppose. And now, you know, reporting on this almost unbelievable, full-scale Russian invasion of the country. I'm speaking to you right now from New York because I just got back from Ukraine, but I've spent, you know, all of this year so far on the ground in Ukraine, various places, the capital of Kiev, Western Lviv, when Putin announced his invasion. I was in the eastern city of Kramatorsk near the front lines of the longer simmering war in eastern Ukraine and awoken by an airstrike on an airfield that was about 2,000 feet.

away from me, which is definitely 2,000 feet too close. And, you know, I've been, I've been doing what many reporters out there have been doing, and that's, you know, covering events on the ground, which this is a month, a month old war now, have been really, really horrific. Yeah, I'm sure. This is the one month anniversary, right, of the invasion. Yeah. What I've been so struck by is that really, even Ukraine's great champions, which is ultimately, the friends of liberal democracy everywhere, were very pessimistic that Ukraine would be able to resist this. And they've resisted Russia in a way, I don't think anyone's thought. Did you see that as a possibility? It's pretty remarkable, isn't it? I mean, you know, I think Ukraine has always

seen itself as an underdog. I would agree with that. But I think, you know, Ukraine is, is an underdog. There always has been this sort of undercurrent of, you know, Ukraine fighting for independence and freedom from, you know, some, you know, great overlord and oppressor. And this is, you know, merely, I think, the latest chapter in Ukraine's struggle and fight for independence. Certainly a lot of people counted Ukraine out, you know, as Russia was building up its forces of more than 150,000, you know, troops around its borders. And, you know, we were learning all the names of these really terrible missile systems that they were massing there and learning of the number of tanks and artillery and planes and attack helicopters.

You know, it wasn't looking good for Ukraine. I think a lot of people counted Ukraine out. I won't say that, like, I thought Ukraine would do as well as they have in resisting Russian forces. I would say I found myself somewhere in between those who thought Russia would just steamroll through and take over Kiev and Ukraine really not allowing Russia any movement throughout the country. I was realistic in the sense that over the years, I've seen just how strong Ukraine Ukrainians are, the way in which the Ukrainian people can unite against a common enemy. Their resiliency is nothing short of, I mean, just spectacular and incredibly inspiring and impressive. We saw glimpses of this during the Orange Revolution in 2004, again, during Euro-Midon in 2013 and 14. you know, certainly the response to Russia's first invasion in 2014 when Ukraine's military was

was weak and caught off guard and it was really up to civil society and volunteers to fill the security void. And, you know, ordinary people from teachers to historians, politicians, hip-hop artists, you know, whatever it was, taking up arms running to the front in order to stop a Russian advance. So, you know, we're seeing more of that on a greater scale. Like right now, you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody still left behind in Kiev without a gun. Their determination, their will is incredible. We see all these pictures coming out of Ukraine, where you have Russian soldiers with guns standing. I've seen numerous pictures of Ukrainian citizens doing things that seem so brave to be almost foolhardy.

So I have been really, that's really spoken to me. A question I wanted to ask you was, there's also truth to the fact that Russian military has not been what it was advertised to be. Right. Can you explain to our listeners a little bit about that? We've seen Russia over the years, you know, really flex its muscles showcase through these large-scale military exercises on Russian soil in Crimea, in joint exercises with Belarus. You know, these new weapons that go by these really scary names. We've seen the mobilization of Russia's forces around the country of Ukraine, you know, by, I think, all measures. Russia's military is bigger. It's more powerful. The weapons are bigger and badder.

You know, I don't think I've read an assessment of the Russian army that says they are in any way weaker than Ukraine's or that they wouldn't do serious, significant damage in fighting against Ukraine. And what we've seen is that I think a lot of people overestimated the power of Russia's army and underestimated the power of Ukraine's army, but also it's brand new civilian volunteer territorial defense forces. I think you have to count those as part of what is a very militarized society in Ukraine now. Ukraine's military in 2014 was weak. It was small. Nobody was battle tested. It was caught off guard. But over the last eight years of Ukraine defending itself against Russia's first invasion of Crimea and the Donbos, it has been trained by NATO forces. It has received Western weaponry. It has learned to fight against Russia. It's battle-hardened. It's tested. It's a lot bigger. I think people underestimated the Ukrainians and certainly overestimated the strength of the Russian military. Certainly, it's tactics and strategies, which we've seen fail time and again over the last few weeks. That's turned this war into much more of a stalemate at the

moment than, you know, an easy, an easy, you know, Russian win. Yes, but also it seems to me that there's a lot of corruption in the Russian military. So Putin had an unrealistic sense of what his military was up to. Right, right. Putin's inner circle is very, very small. And I think it's only gotten smaller over the years. And certainly during the pandemic, we've seen Putin become more isolated. There are fewer people he's actually speaking to. And even fewer, he's seeing face to face. And we know from recent weeks that when he actually does meet with somebody,

they're sitting at a table that is very, very, very long. And they are very far away from him, right? And I think that is like the perfect kind of visual of the distance between Putin and not only his military, but his government. his people, certainly. And I think that's a way of visualizing just how wide of a gap there is between Putin and these sort of like military realities. He's been told by his generals, we have the biggest, baddest, strongest military.

We're going to steamroll over the Ukrainians. You know, the Ukrainians are untested. They're these crazy neo-Nazis, which is, of course, not true at all. And they're small and we'll be able to roll over them. and will be greeted as liberators by all of these people who want to return to their Russian homeland, right? And Russian speakers will thank us. Right. Did that even happen in the Dumbass? You know, in 2014 and in Crimea in 2014 during the annexation, we have to be honest.

Like there were certainly some people who were nostalgic for Russian rule and for this idea of piecing back together parts of the Soviet Union to be this. brotherly nation, as they like to say in Moscow, or this collective of brotherly nations that would include places like Ukraine and Russia and Belarus. These people did not make up the majority. They were predominantly older people, pensioners who sort of spoke about the, you know, quote unquote, good old days of the Soviet Union when they didn't really have to worry about jobs, when they felt that their pensions were larger and they were better taken care of. But certainly, younger Ukrainians, Ukrainian is coming of age in a much more free

and democratic Ukraine, people who had traveled to the West, who were looking for jobs in Europe and had friends that they knew in Europe, knew that and felt that Ukraine's future was with the West, and they didn't welcome this. And by a large, large extent, Russia was not welcomed at all

in many places in 2014. And in this current invasion now, I can't tell you that, you know, one place at all, big or small, where Russian soldiers were greeted as liberators, as Putin, you know, said he believed they would. So what do you think happens now? Not fair to ask people to make a prediction, but that's what I always do because it's my podcast. I suppose that's right. Let me see if I can figure it out. If Russia thought that it was going to have an easy time in Ukraine, we now know that they certainly won't. I don't see a world in which, and I think, you know, some people might disagree with me here, but I don't see a world in which Putin backs down.

Nothing he has said thus far has been truthful. There's no reason to believe that Russia, I think, wants to, in good faith, negotiate a peaceful settlement to this. I just see too many, too many Russian lives lost, too much on the line for him. And, you know, certainly no part of their mission, of his mission has been accomplished. The Ukrainians have beat them back almost everywhere they've been, at least not allowing them to advance further into territories that they have invaded and over the last few weeks occupied. You know, what we might see is out of, you know, frustration, Putin, instead of relying on his ground forces, which have not done the job he thought they would, relying more on his use of heavy artillery and air. and unfortunately, you know, possibly some really destructive missile systems, because, you know, in close quarters and on the ground, you know,

they just haven't been able to make any moves. Even if he levels the whole country and sends 500,000 people to gulags or death camps like Stalin did, he still can't rule the country. It's a huge country. He doesn't have the troops. He doesn't, I mean, he must know that he can't win this thing. So what does he do? He just tries, like Syria to just do as much damage as possible. Like, do you think he has a moment where he thinks like, oh, I got to readjust? I mean, if he can't invade, take control of Ukraine and do with it what he would like, which is turn it into some sort of vassal state or puppet state that he ultimately controls.

Right. Then, you know, I think what my fear is and what the fear of many Ukrainians I've spoken with is, is that Putin might just work to completely destroy it, destroy what he can of Ukrainian culture, destroy what he can of Ukrainian people, destroy what he can of its infrastructure, anything that symbolizes Ukraine. And that right now is what I think most people are worried about. They've stopped Russia on the battlefield, but Russia still does have this ability to,

if Putin desires, to possibly just wreak as much physical havoc and damage as possible in an attempt to, if not control it, then to wipe it out. Thank you, Christopher. All right, take care. Fuller is a senior politics editor at The Daily Beast. Matt Fuller. How are we doing? Very excited to have you here at the new abnormal, where you have been before and hopefully

will be again. The old abnormal. The old abnormal. Let's talk about those hearings. You cover Congress. You cover all of the fuckery. You know all of those guys. Lion Ted Cruz.

Were you surprised at just how disgusting they acted or no? At this point, nothing really surprises me, but I will say these hearings have had not really racial undertones, really racial overtones. Right. Some might even say racism. Just straight racism, just the flavored version. I think I expected it to be maybe a little bit more coded, a little bit more dog whistly. Certainly I knew that they were going to bring up stupid things like critical race theory. I didn't expect the line of attack to be just so, to me, overtly racist. I think what we're talking about here, Republicans have settled on. on Kintanji Brown Jackson is soft on crime. She's soft on child pornographers. And these, by the way, these attacks are totally baseless and ridiculous. As Democrats have repeatedly noted, her sentencing was well in line with the average sentences that people were getting. It's one particular case that Republicans have zeroed in on where she gave an 18-year-old. He had sent and received some child pornographic images. She gave him three months in jail. That was totally within line. She's explained why, you know, the sentencing guidelines weren't all that helpful in this sort of scenario just because the sentencing that Congress came up with for these child pornography charges mostly relate to someone sending them through the mail. And frankly, the idea that like someone's sending a thousand images through the mail, that that kind of shows someone who's like a prolific child pornography. And you could share a thousand images through the click of a mouse.

And the specifics of this case are basically an 18-year-old gay kid. The point is, if you're talking, they're trying to sully her with talk of pedophilia. Yeah. And just, I mean, generally soft on crime is also the point. That is sort of a racist trope. That's a black person who's associated with crime or who go easy on criminals. And frankly, like, this isn't even a case that's truly courted judicial philosophy. I mean, the Supreme Court is not really determining people.

people's sentences. That's never happening. Yeah. They really want to paint this picture, but the broader issue here is Republicans know Democrats have all the votes. Right. At the end of the day, I'd be very surprised if Kintaghi Brown Jackson is not confirmed and frankly confirmed with probably a couple of Republican votes. They know that, and this is just about scoring points, which is why you see Ted Cruz giving his speech and then checking his Twitter mentions. Right. This isn't about actually moving people. This is. is about raising money. This is about, you know, adding to their own clout. And it's, it's really been a, frankly, a pretty disgusting confirmation here. One that you've seen a lot of really gross things

happen. And from that, you've also seen a couple moments like Cory Booker's moment last night, where he kind of laid it all on the table. And it was very moving to see someone address the sort of overtly racist attacks that she's faced and continues to feel. face with Republicans just trying to score points with the base. Yeah, I mean, that was what it seemed like to me. And you saw that the older senators were a little more hesitant to do it. I mean, you did certainly see some of John Cornyn do it, but it wasn't with the same kind of zeal as the younger guys who are clearly have their eyes on running in 2024.

The Josh Hawley's, the Ted Cruz, again, even the more seasoned Republicans, you saw Lindsay Graham have this sort of bizarre outburst. I wanted to talk to you about that because it struck me. I mean, that was completely crazy. I watched every minute of that and I couldn't. I wondered how much that had to do with his own relationship with Michelle Childs, who was also a very, very venerable black judge who had been impossible, had sort of been talked about as possibly a Supreme Court pick because he did say at the end, like, Democrats never did this for Michelle Childs and sort of stormed off. Yeah, I mean, I think he's certainly upset about everything. Yeah, about everything.

But the level of aggrievement that he has continues to have over Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed despite credible allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford. It's incredible that you can be so mad and so aggrieved when you won. I mean, you won that fight. And this has nothing to do with Kintanji, Brown Jackson, it has everything to do with him just sort of scoring points and voicing the sort of politics of aggrievement. He was the first person, I think the first Republican who brought up Donald Trump as well. Donald Trump has really been largely missing from these proceedings as someone

who, you know, it's not a topic that's really been covered, but it's rearing its ugly head and the politics of Donald Trump are still very much present here. I was struck by that like Trump wasn't there, but Trumpism was. Absolutely. That's a perfect way to put it. I mean, this is culture war. This is own the libs, politics of aggrievement. Every lesson that Donald Trump taught Republicans is here on full display. And Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton. And even to a lesser extent, the Lindsey Grams and John Kennedys and even John Cornyn, they're all sort of going that direction.

What's the schedule now? We've had a day of hearings that are sort of like sort of the last day, very kind of ancillary. And then what happens? Yeah, there will be a committee vote upcoming, I think, on Monday. And then we'll move to the floor. The only issue here is if Republicans were to try to pull some stunt where they don't show up in the Judiciary Committee and denied. But Chuck Grassley said they're not going to do that, right? Right.

And frankly, we've already seen, I think, Republicans have tipped their hand that they wouldn't play with that game. I'm sure that Ted Cruz would love to pull that maneuver. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen here. I think Kintaghi Brown-Jackson really performed very well here and actually allayed a lot of concerns for some more reasonable Republicans. I'd say like Ben Sass, he certainly didn't sign on to a letter basically demanding some more information about Kintaghi Brown Jackson's sentencing and whatnot. And I think there's a bunch of Republicans here who recognize that this person is extremely well qualified, a totally middle of the road pick for Joe Biden, that it's a six to three

court that this is not going to swing the balance of the court. Right. No, it's not going to do, I mean, God, it's so true. Go on. Right. So, I mean, they're fighting this much over, you know, making votes six to three, basically, in their favor. Dahlia Lithwick, who's a very seasoned writer and who writes a lot about the Supreme Court and has written about the court for a long time, talked in this piece about how Democrats did not protect Judge Jackson enough and how they really let Republicans abuse her, really, for lack of a better word. you have watched a lot of these hearings. You've seen how they go. Do you think that's right? Even in the headline, I think they acknowledged that Cory Booker certainly did defend her. Certainly. But he was later on in the hearings. He was. And it was, I think it really was a moving moment because it was just like you'd watch this woman take such abuse from Republicans.

And really, Democrats sort of ignore it. Now, and I think this is also acknowledging the piece that this is kind of their strategy. Democrats are like, don't rock the boat. We have the votes. At the end of the day, this person is going to be a Supreme Court justice. So we don't need to fight with Republicans and make this a huge fight. In fact, it's kind of the strategy of like, don't look at this. Don't look at this confirmation battle. Let's keep people sort of unengaged from it and will frankly win. And I think that's a smart strategy, but it does sort of leave her out to dry. And, you know, it was tough to see these Republicans make these, again, overtly, racist sort of attacks, really exploit someone who has had a very strong resume and is extremely well qualified. These attacks are really, frankly, baseless and that she's been soft on child pornographers or is soft on crime in some way or is using critical race theory to guide her sentencing. All sort of ridiculous attacks. And I think Democrats, strategically, it makes total sense. You just sort of ignore those attacks and you win at the end of the day. But yes, it has certainly made it hard for her. And I think we saw, you know, that emotional speech from Booker

and her response to it. And I think it in some ways made that moment all the more powerful because it was such just a juxtaposition from how Democrats were treating her writ large. Was there a place for them to have made this about how our democracy is in trouble and how, I mean, we are on this collision course, right? It's March now. And, you know, the Supreme Court's going to take a recess for the summer. We're going to see they're going to overturn Roe, which is a right that women have had for 50 years. It seems like this might be a moment for Democrats when they're having these nationally publicized hearings to talk about what the hell's going on in the Supreme Court, which is Trump installed three Trumpy justices and shifted the balance of the court. Yeah, I mean, and I also think there was another slate piece that was basically like Republicans have moved on from tipping their hand about Roe because it seems like they are going to overturn Roe v. Wade. And now they're lining up gay marriage and, you know, is the next fight. And birth control, all these sorts of issues could very easily fall. I'm not entirely convinced that the Supreme Court is going to overturn all this precedent. But certainly these things are on the line here and under real attack.

with a six to three courts. So yeah, Democrats could have been sounding the alarm better. That's certainly a strategy. But I also understand that, you know, you make this as milkedose as possible. Hopefully people don't pay attention to this. The more you make this about an attack on Roe v. Wade, the more oxygen you give Republicans to attack Roe v. Wade and the more oxygen you give their attacks on Kintaghi Brown Jackson. So make this as, you know, uncontentious as possible and hopefully, you know, at the end of the day, you have a new Supreme Court justice. Interesting. Do we have any intel on what's happening with Clarence Thomas? Yeah, I mean, it's just curious. The fact is we don't have much intel and that's the

interesting part. We believe he's still been hospitalized, I think, since Friday. Certainly, you know, Clarence Thomas is not the picture of perfect health. I'm certainly not cheering for Clarence Thomas's death, but I understand why people would be watching this so closely. Yeah. There's a lot of secrecy there, which I think is what is relevant. And the Supreme Court's also shrouded in that sort of secrecy, too. But, you know, I would not say anyone thinks he's on his deathbed or anything, but it is obviously been noteworthy that he's been in the hospital and that we haven't had much information about that. Let's just have two seconds on what you see on the legislature. I've sort of seen, I think there are more

sanctions for you coming down the pike yeah there's a lot of different remedies here certainly they're still looking at more aid i think that the aid that they've already approved is they've always thought that that's been a part of the solution not the entire solution i think there could be more sanctions still coming you know this war is now officially a month old we're into month two of it and i think the whole posture of this everyone sort of expected this to be a swift attack against Kiev and that Russia would very quickly take over the country and that certainly hasn't happened. So the sort of prolonged effect of this is, it's been interesting. Thank you, Matt Fuller.

Thank you. What's crazier than QAnon, more outlandish than Pizza Gate, and scarier than a Mexican getaway with Ted Cruz? The answer is what the American right wing has planned next. Be one in the first to listen to Fever Dreams, new podcasts from the Daily Beast, tracking the conspiracy slingers, orange acolytes, and straight-up grifters pushing to retake power. Every Wednesday hosts Swin Subisang and Will Summer,

checking in on the movement of the radical right. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts or your favorite podcast player to catch the first episode and get subscribed. That's Fever Dreams, which you can subscribe to wherever you get your podcasts. Andy Levy. Molly Jongfest. Who is your fuck-that guy? My fuck-that guy is a group of guys and gals.

It's way too much of the media coverage of the Judge Jackson hearings. You know, Molly, you brought one of these things up earlier where there was a New York Times headline that talked about a fiery exchange between Judge Jackson and one of the Republican senators, which was not a fiery exchange. It was the Republican senators grandstanding and yelling and screaming and, you know, their eyes bulging out and her calmly responding to questions. And you can't have a fiery exchange if one of the people is as cool as ice, which is what she was. But there's this need to sort of, they can't stop themselves from both siding things. And so they have to call it a fiery exchange, even though the exchange was completely one-sided. And it wasn't even fiery. It was, it was embarrassing for the Republicans and it was obnoxious.

So, you know, a fiery exchange sounds like, oh, that's interesting. I should watch that. That's two people making great points going at it. And this was the exact opposite of that. So you have stuff like that. And then there was a piece at CNN.com that looked at this. And it was like with Jackson confirmation hearing underway, these GOP senators with presidential ambitions look to make a splash. And it was a whole thing about, you know, about Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton. Oh, I forgot to mention Tom Cotton earlier. He sucks too. Let's make sure we get that. Again, it treated these guys seriously. As I've said before, I'm not going to take, I'm not going to treat Josh Hawley as a good faith actor. But that's what the pieces like this do. They lay out, well, this is why this is Josh Holly's strategy behind why he's doing this. And they just sort of don't ever get to the point of how wrong it is. And, you know, and you get, but Holly, who has cultivated a reputation as a hardline populist conservative with a particular emphasis on. pro-family policies, remained committed to pressing the point. Oh, he's pro-family. Really? Fuck off. He's not pro-family. I hate that. It's just all they do is frame things from a Republican perspective and from a conservative perspective. And again, because they feel like, oh, well, we have to be fair. So we have to describe them the way they describe themselves as opposed to what they are in reality.

And I'm absolutely sick of it. And it's a big problem with the media. And so I say fuck those guys. Yeah, as good as good a fuck that guy as any. My fuck that guy is you're going to be a little bit surprised. Are you ready? I'm ready. I'm sitting. He's a Democrat.

Uh-oh. He is one Alvin Bragg. He's our DA in New York. He seceded Syvance. And he was elected and he was very popular. And a lot of people like him and things. I think he's smart. But I'm going to read you a little bit of a letter from Mark Pomerantz, who was one of the special DAs brought in, assistant district attorneys, brought in to prosecute Donald Trump and to work on this prosecution.

I'm just going to read you a tiny bit here because, as we know last week, Alvin Bragg said he was going to drop the prosecution of Trump. Trump for criminal charges. I want to just point out this is pretty unusual for the full text of a resignation letter to appear in the New York Times, but here we are. As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the penal law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual statements of financial condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information related to his personal finances and lying about his asses to banks, the national media counterparties,

and many others, including the American people. What the fuck, man? What the fuck? Alvin Bragg, you have to answer to us. We elected you. We can unelect you. Sick of this fucking shit. We have lived under Syvance,

who also chose not to prosecute many powerful and rich men. It stops. Like, he has to answer to us. I mean, with Democrats, this who needs Republicans. And so for that, he gets a hearty, fuck you for me. So what do you think this? Because I was trying to figure out, like, what do you think his deal is here? Because I saw, I saw some people saying these kind of spats are kind of common because you have people who say, well, he's clearly guilty. He's done this. He's done that. But then ultimately the DA has to

decide if a case can be made and that this is just the normal back and forth that you get. But on the other hand, no, it's not because you have a guy, you have two people, I think, who resigned, right? Or was it just him? Two of them. Two of them resigned. And this letter was made public. So clearly, this is not a normal circumstance. This letter was put in the New York Times. Right. Like, that doesn't happen by accident. Exactly. These are pretty venerable and respected guys. And this is a meaningful movement. and I think that for sure, without question, that there's some there there. I don't know what it is,

and I wouldn't want to speculate, but I know that Alvin Bragg is going to do the right thing and explain to the American people what the fuck he's doing or rectify his situation. Wow. Someone has faith. I have no horse in this race, obviously. No, no whatsoever. Certainly not.

Well, I definitely agree with you, though. Fuck that guy. On that note, we'll wrap this episode of the new abnormal from The Daily Beast. In future episodes, will be talking to smart folks from The Daily Beast and beyond from media, culture, politics, and science. We'll help us understand what's happening to our country and the world. We hope you'll subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app and share the show on social media.

Thanks so much for listening and we'll see you again on the next episode. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studied The Daily Beast podcast at thedailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Describing is the best way to feed the Beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today. Convierter your passion in a new business with Shopify and bathe records of ventas with the form of the power of pay with a better conversion of the world.

The incredible system of Pago of Shopify facilitates the companies in your site web, in the reds social and in in any other that's music for your ears no let's more waltas your business

will be a good your business will be a good a year old per year at shopify pointe at shopify.combe bar records